|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Any other insightful comments on the issue, cLutZ?
|
Norway28874 Posts
Introvert, you're being disingenious here, not sure whether it's deliberate or not. Either way, you've completely missed the ball on the main argument from 'the liberal left', which is actually completely consistent in both this PP shooting and the IS/Muslims connection. That is, we need to stop hateful rhetoric.
I'm not blind to the fact that there are elements within Islam that can be interpreted in a 'warring' way. Nor are most liberals. (But one has to be historically ignorant to make the claim that violence, jihadism and religious intolerance are ubiquitous parts of Islam. Thus, generalized statements about the entire religion, rather than about interpretations of the religion, are wrong. ) What I greatly object to however, is generalizing and hateful rhetoric geared towards muslims as a group, precisely because this is likely to be polarizing, to both sides, and likely to incite violent actions from 'crazies', from both sides. From anti-immigrant groups, because some of them genuinely believe that Muslim immigration/terrorists represents such a threat to their society that no means are too extreme in the confrontation of this problem. (Being Norwegian, I'm well acquainted with this - Breivik wrote/copy pasted a 1000 page long manifesto detailing his beliefs, being exactly this)
Likewise, Daesh is arguably the most hateful organization, both in action and rhetoric, that currently resides on this planet, and they similarly manage to incite violent actions from their crazies - something which is also exacerbated by hateful rhetoric from anti-islamic groups. (Makes it much easier for them to sell the message that the west hates them, that there's a religious war going on, that no means are too extreme, that muslims living in the west have no future here - all important components in the recruiting of jihadists. )
Nobody is saying that being opposed to abortion makes people shoot up PP clinics. Of course, abortion is a peculiar issue, in the sense that opposition to it necessarily has to be founded around some degree of belief that it constitutes murder, so the crazies might not need the type of inspiration say, environmentalists do. But it sure as hell doesn't help when prominent politicians state outright lies about what PP does in a way that makes it look like a significantly more depraved organization than what any genuinely informed abortion oppositionist could possibly believe?
Thought experiment - what if a prominent liberal politician stated, in one of the presidential debates, that the continued use of coal and other fossil fuels is literally going to cause the extinction of mankind and all life on the planet, within the next 150 years - despite this claim clearly being a complete fabrication. Then, two months after this, an environmental terrorists group bombed an american coal power plant, quoting this very speech. You think there would be no responsibility at all?
The thing is, I'm not holding Carly Fiorina personally accountable in any way here, because she is just one representation of a politician espousing hateful, deceitful rhetoric. This happens on both sides of the politial aisle, and I'm inclined to believe that which side one thinks is more guilty of this depends on personal political affiliation. Which side is more guilty is largely irrelevant anyway, but I can see how from the left, environmentalism especially is an area where some of the rhetoric has been so extreme that it could theoretically have incited and inspired terrorism. We can never know which particular examples of hateful rhetoric will end up having actual consequences in terms of death or whatnot, and thus I feel that Carly Fiorina can't be singled out just because she in this case ended up as part of the negative statistic. But ALL politicians who engage in this type of polemical demagoguery are to some degree guilty when incidents like these take place.
|
I think the problem is that some people still seem to operate under "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" and don't want to understand that words actually can make people do very bad things. It's called propaganda and it works. I don't think anybody would doubt that an extremist Salafist preacher is reponsible for radicalising a group of young Muslims and obviously the kind of hate speech that comes out of the American right leaves its impression on people.
|
I wouldn't even call Liquid'Drone a fair arbiter of what constitutes hateful rhetoric and ought to be silenced. I read all the honeyed words pointing toward universal understanding of what it means to be deceitful and what is and isn't bad generalization. Policy debate when up against dangerous situations abroad and corrupt organizations at home is not the time to dance around words in fear of offense or the new boogeyman of implicit radicalization. It reduces to the very same root as has come up dozens of times in this thread: you want to dictate what people who disagree with you are allowed to say and think in public discourse, and cloak it by alleging your own side will willingly hold themselves to the same standard. (This from the crowd that liberally sprinkles "racist" and "homophobe" on the debate--I won't hold my breath waiting for a prophesied return to argument in good faith)
I remember hearing Kerry say that this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Then Obama in the Phillipines added the asterisk *unless Republicans goad Muslims into it. They put on a clinic on holding conflicting positions simultaneously. Or maybe Drone could say seriously that the movie maker shouldn't have incited the Benghazi attacks even as he emailed others the true cause and planners. Discourse is upside down and not for the reasons you identify. If the west can't talk frankly about modern issues, corruption, and solutions then we do not deserve the liberal tradition of free speech or the rest. We should instead pledge ourselves to a more enlightened viewpoint: some speech is more free than others.
|
Norway28874 Posts
Firstly, I myself wouldn't call myself a fair arbiter of what constitutes hateful rhetoric. I have a clear political bias, I willingly identify as part of the 'political left', and even though I genuinely try to interpret everything through unfiltered lenses, I think I know that all humans interpret everything based on everything they already think they know. And even though I also willingly identify as arrogant, I don't think I'm sufficiently special to not be influenced by the same principle.
I've never argued for any type of legal stifling of what you can and cannot say, merely that people should understand that their words might influence others, and that they should think about this before they speak. Isn't this, 'assume personal responsibilty for your actions', an argument that should resonate well with the 'political right'? Further, I think you'll have a very hard time finding posts of me where I am lightly calling anyone racist or homophobe. (If you can, please direct me to them, so I can either retract the statement or argue why I think it was warranted.  ) In fact, I think it is really problematic when these phrases are thrown around too lightly, firstly because I think it's much better to attack a statement than to attack the person behind the statement (although, as stated, it is likely that we have different interpretations of what constitutes racist or homophobic behavior due to interpreting the world based on different lenses), secondly because when there's a dilution of the meaning of words, they lose their force and power when they actually need to be applied. The word racist is probably the best example of a word losing its power due to being used too frequently.
I'll grant you that I'm more likely to point out transgressions from political opposition.. But I mean.. Not every fight is my fight to take.
|
I think the central problem is one of fabrication. It would have been perfectly fine for Fiorina to describe the video as she did if that was what actually happened in the video. I don't think she would get nearly as much flak if it were, even if the attacker quoted her (though she would of course get some flak, it's politics and people are partisan). He could have just watched the video himself and come to the same conclusion and be using her as a mouthpiece.
But that isn't what happens in the video. When you make a demonstrably false statement and someone quotes it or parts of it as motivation, they can't have come to that conclusion by looking at the evidence themselves. It starts to strain credulity to simply attribute it to political concordance and say that the guy would have done what he did no matter what and say that there was no rhetorical influence. In this case he doesn't quote the demonstrably false parts...but it's still unlikely he would quote parts of her statement and not have heard the rest. I don't think she should be getting quite as much blame as she seems to be though.
I mean, if Hillary Clinton said that gun companies are lobbying to be able to sell guns to children and they aren't, then someone attacked a gun company and said that they were trying to sell guns to children, she would share some of the blame right? But if she said that gun companies are selling weapons that kill people, and someone attacked a gun company saying that they sell weapons that kill people, she shouldn't catch as much if any flak.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't want to harp on causation but what we're really discussing is how certain we are about the statement "would the attacker still have attacked in a world where Fiorina didn't make her statements about Planned Parenthood?" and, if the answer is no, whether or not it matters. I would argue that the statement being demonstrably false lowers the chance of the answer to that question being yes and makes the answer matter a lot more.
|
On November 29 2015 22:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Introvert, you're being disingenious here, not sure whether it's deliberate or not. Either way, you've completely missed the ball on the main argument from 'the liberal left', which is actually completely consistent in both this PP shooting and the IS/Muslims connection. That is, we need to stop hateful rhetoric.
I'm not blind to the fact that there are elements within Islam that can be interpreted in a 'warring' way. (But one has to be historically ignorant to make the claim that violence, jihadism and religious intolerance are ubiquitous parts of Islam. Thus, generalized statements about the entire religion, rather than about interpretations of the religion, are wrong. ) Nor are most liberals. What I greatly object to however, is generalizing and hateful rhetoric geared towards muslims as a group, precisely because this is likely to be polarizing, to both sides, and likely to incite violent actions from 'crazies', from both sides. From anti-immigrant groups, because some of them genuinely believe that Muslim immigration/terrorists represents such a threat to their society that no means are too extreme in the confrontation of this problem. (Being Norwegian, I'm well acquainted with this - Breivik wrote/copy pasted a 1000 page long manifesto detailing his beliefs, being exactly this)
Likewise, Daesh is arguably the most hateful organization, both in action and rhetoric, that currently resides on this planet, and they similarly manage to incite violent actions from their crazies - something which is also exacerbated by hateful rhetoric from anti-islamic groups. (Makes it much easier for them to sell the message that the west hates them, that there's a religious war going on, that no means are too extreme, that muslims living in the west have no future here - all important components in the recruiting of jihadists. )
Nobody is saying that being opposed to abortion makes people shoot up PP clinics. Of course, abortion is a peculiar issue, in the sense that opposition to it necessarily has to be founded around some degree of belief that it constitutes murder, so the crazies might not need the type of inspiration say, environmentalists do. But it sure as hell doesn't help when prominent politicians state outright lies about what PP does in a way that makes it look like a significantly more depraved organization than what any genuinely informed abortion oppositionist could possibly believe?
Thought experiment - what if a prominent liberal politician stated, in one of the presidential debates, that the continued use of coal and other fossil fuels is literally going to cause the extinction of mankind and all life on the planet, within the next 150 years - despite this claim clearly being a complete fabrication. Then, two months after this, an environmental terrorists group bombed an american coal power plant, quoting this very speech. You think there would be no responsibility at all?
The thing is, I'm not holding Carly Fiorina personally accountable in any way here, because she is just one representation of a politician espousing hateful, deceitful rhetoric. This happens on both sides of the politial aisle, and I'm inclined to believe that which side one thinks is more guilty of this depends on personal political affiliation. Which side is more guilty is largely irrelevant anyway, but I can see how from the left, environmentalism especially is an area where some of the rhetoric has been so extreme that it could theoretically have incited and inspired terrorism. We can never know which particular examples of hateful rhetoric will end up having actual consequences in terms of death or whatnot, and thus I feel that Carly Fiorina can't be singled out just because she in this case ended up as part of the negative statistic. But ALL politicians who engage in this type of polemical demagoguery are to some degree guilty when incidents like these take place.
I kind of don't want to get back into it today, but a quick reply.
ISIS is different, and that would be true even if it were a secular organization. I am aware that it's not how most people practice Islam, but it's hardly the point. If your propaganda involves "look, we behead people!" I'm going to put you in a different category than someone opposing abortion.
TheTenthDoc more or less gets the point I was trying to make. As to your thought experiment- well is it really a thought a experiment? There is such a thing as eco-terrorism. But I don't hold, say, Bernie Sanders responsible any any way for it. Perhaps there is someone who does share some of the blame, but I'm not an expert on eco-terrorism so I don't know.
It's possible that influential people can encourage such things, but I don't think this PP shooting is related, both because of who did it, and more importantly, what the influential person (in this case Firoina) said.
|
The presidential campaign is reigniting the battle over importing prescription drugs from Canada, with all of the leading Democratic candidates endorsing the idea.
Calls for allowing people to buy directly from Canadian pharmacies are also intensifying from some Republicans in Congress, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
But the drug industry remains dead-set against allowing importation, and it's unclear whether voter support will translate into legislative action.
“Ensuring patients have access to needed medicines is critical, but importing medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, is the wrong answer,” the trade group, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America or PhRMA, wrote in a fact sheet last month. That position was reiterated in a recent briefing with reporters.
The main argument from pharmaceutical companies is that allowing imported drugs into the U.S. could bring in unsafe drugs — a risk that the group says is growing over time.
“It has become very easy for counterfeiters to make bottles and packages look genuine, but the reality is they are often filled with laced, adulterated or fake pills that are dangerous to patients,” the group warned.
Still, public support for the idea is strong among both registered Democrats and Republicans alike. Nearly 75 percent of people believe Americans should be able to import prescriptions from Canada, according to a poll this fall by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Drug importation is governed by a complex patchwork of laws and regulations that is fueling a web-driven hunt for prescriptions.
While pharmacies are prohibited from importing drugs for resale, patients can purchase online for their own use. The Food and Drug Administration has cracked down on Internet pharmacies over the last three years, though it still has a slim record of enforcing the federal ban.
Source
|
On November 30 2015 05:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The presidential campaign is reigniting the battle over importing prescription drugs from Canada, with all of the leading Democratic candidates endorsing the idea.
Calls for allowing people to buy directly from Canadian pharmacies are also intensifying from some Republicans in Congress, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
But the drug industry remains dead-set against allowing importation, and it's unclear whether voter support will translate into legislative action.
“Ensuring patients have access to needed medicines is critical, but importing medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, is the wrong answer,” the trade group, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America or PhRMA, wrote in a fact sheet last month. That position was reiterated in a recent briefing with reporters.
The main argument from pharmaceutical companies is that allowing imported drugs into the U.S. could bring in unsafe drugs — a risk that the group says is growing over time.
“It has become very easy for counterfeiters to make bottles and packages look genuine, but the reality is they are often filled with laced, adulterated or fake pills that are dangerous to patients,” the group warned.
Still, public support for the idea is strong among both registered Democrats and Republicans alike. Nearly 75 percent of people believe Americans should be able to import prescriptions from Canada, according to a poll this fall by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Drug importation is governed by a complex patchwork of laws and regulations that is fueling a web-driven hunt for prescriptions.
While pharmacies are prohibited from importing drugs for resale, patients can purchase online for their own use. The Food and Drug Administration has cracked down on Internet pharmacies over the last three years, though it still has a slim record of enforcing the federal ban. Source
Gotta stop people learning how badly US prices are inflated compared to the rest of the world lol
|
On November 30 2015 04:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:I think the central problem is one of fabrication. It would have been perfectly fine for Fiorina to describe the video as she did if that was what actually happened in the video. I don't think she would get nearly as much flak if it were, even if the attacker quoted her (though she would of course get some flak, it's politics and people are partisan). He could have just watched the video himself and come to the same conclusion and be using her as a mouthpiece. But that isn't what happens in the video. When you make a demonstrably false statement and someone quotes it or parts of it as motivation, they can't have come to that conclusion by looking at the evidence themselves. It starts to strain credulity to simply attribute it to political concordance and say that the guy would have done what he did no matter what and say that there was no rhetorical influence. In this case he doesn't quote the demonstrably false parts...but it's still unlikely he would quote parts of her statement and not have heard the rest. I don't think she should be getting quite as much blame as she seems to be though. I mean, if Hillary Clinton said that gun companies are lobbying to be able to sell guns to children and they aren't, then someone attacked a gun company and said that they were trying to sell guns to children, she would share some of the blame right? But if she said that gun companies are selling weapons that kill people, and someone attacked a gun company saying that they sell weapons that kill people, she shouldn't catch as much if any flak. + Show Spoiler +I don't want to harp on causation but what we're really discussing is how certain we are about the statement "would the attacker still have attacked in a world where Fiorina didn't make her statements about Planned Parenthood?" and, if the answer is no, whether or not it matters. I would argue that the statement being demonstrably false lowers the chance of the answer to that question being yes and makes the answer matter a lot more.
That's all very well, but other than saying they're despiccable human beings, there's nothing you can do about it without reducing freedom of speech. Not that the latter is all wrong. I know that in the Netherlands, freedom of speech is limited by regulations such as a prohibition from inciting violence. And in the UK there's laws limiting libel and slander (which I think are awfully abused, but the laws exist, and would definitely apply to Carly Fiorina's speech about PP).
The problem is that the difference between truth and falsehood tends to be fuzzy. Was Trump claiming thousands of people cheered 9/11 in New Jersey a flatout lie, or a slight exaggeration of the truth. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get one answer or the other. Is telling the truth, but leaving out some important context, and thereby completely twisting the meaning still telling the truth? The English courts have a hell of a time sorting this out. Is Geert Wilders inciting people to chant "less less less Moroccans" inciting violence? Even if nobody actually acted upon it and went out to "lessen" the number of Moroccans in NL? Does Breivik citing Wilders and Le Pen as inspirations for his heinous acts mean they are partially responsible for those acts? Or are they, as the European police and politics have decided, the acts of a lone mad man?
For the record, I think Wilders is despiccable, but he is not inciting violence, nor is he in any way to blame for Breivik's actions. I think it is a very dangerous road to start down, and people are ultimately fully responsible for their own actions. While I absolutely agree that public people should consider their words, and throwing oil on the fire is both stupid and dangerous, people have the right to be stupid, and the danger comes from OTHER rational actors doing dangerous things that the speaker (probably) never condoned.
|
Norway28874 Posts
Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric.
And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces.
I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.'
|
On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.'
And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else.
The connection really is so absurdly tenuous.
Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here.
|
On November 30 2015 06:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.' And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else. The connection really is so absurdly tenuous. Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here.
What's absurd is your position.
First, living without water and electricity in a trailer in the woods doesn't make you a "crazy person" by itself, it more likely makes you an Appalachian (who probably votes Republican).
Domestic violence is pretty common too. Whenever a terrorist doesn't line up with the right's idea of terrorism then suddenly it's the work of a madman who isn't influenced by the propaganda of those who agreed with the terrorist right up until they got violent.
It reeks of bullshit and I think anyone with half a sense can smell it a mile away.
|
On November 30 2015 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 06:30 Introvert wrote:On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.' And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else. The connection really is so absurdly tenuous. Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here. What's absurd is your position. First, living without water and electricity in a trailer in the woods doesn't make you a "crazy person" by itself, it more likely makes you an Appalachian (who probably votes Republican). Domestic violence is pretty common too. Whenever a terrorist doesn't line up with the right's idea of terrorism then suddenly it's the work of a madman who isn't influenced by the propaganda of those who agreed with the terrorist right up until they got violent. It reeks of bullshit and I think anyone with half a sense can smell it a mile away.
The argument that what republican candidates said is responsible for the act of this "terrorist" is like saying the quran or islam is responsible of ISIS, 9/11 and the recent event in Paris.
All is in the "right until you get violent". You can think however you want, but justifying murder is a step most will never make, and I think until that step is made, it is okay to disagree and debate whatever the topic may be.
|
On November 30 2015 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 06:30 Introvert wrote:On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.' And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else. The connection really is so absurdly tenuous. Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here. What's absurd is you position. First, living without water and electricity in a trailer in the woods doesn't make you a "crazy person" by itself, it more likely makes you an Appalachian (who probably votes Republican). Domestic violence is pretty common too. Whenever a terrorist doesn't line up with the right's idea of terrorism then suddenly it's the work of a madman who isn't influenced by the propaganda of those who agreed with the terrorist right up until they got violent. It's reeks of bullshit and I think anyone with half a sense can smell it a mile away.
We've covered this before, so I won't retread.
What are you going on about? I didn't say if it was or wasn't domestic terrorism. Stop putting words in my mouth. If it fits the definition then it is. Easy enough.
|
On November 30 2015 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2015 06:30 Introvert wrote:On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.' And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else. The connection really is so absurdly tenuous. Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here. What's absurd is your position. First, living without water and electricity in a trailer in the woods doesn't make you a "crazy person" by itself, it more likely makes you an Appalachian (who probably votes Republican). Domestic violence is pretty common too. Whenever a terrorist doesn't line up with the right's idea of terrorism then suddenly it's the work of a madman who isn't influenced by the propaganda of those who agreed with the terrorist right up until they got violent. It reeks of bullshit and I think anyone with half a sense can smell it a mile away. Your argument, that what republican candidates said is responsible for the act of this "terrorist" is like saying the quran or islam is responsible of ISIS, 9/11 and the recent event in Paris.
My argument is that it contributes. People can claim the rhetoric doesn't contribute if they want but I don't see how that argument could be taken seriously.
For instance if the guy in the previously posted video while doing "anything in his power to prevent" a mosque being built gets violent there is no reason to pretend he wasn't at least partially emboldened (even if indirectly) by the type of rhetoric/propaganda we've seen out of the political right.
No one is claiming if people stopped the propaganda the violence would stop but the phrase "you're not helping" comes to mind.
|
On November 30 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On November 30 2015 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2015 06:30 Introvert wrote:On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.' And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else. The connection really is so absurdly tenuous. Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here. What's absurd is your position. First, living without water and electricity in a trailer in the woods doesn't make you a "crazy person" by itself, it more likely makes you an Appalachian (who probably votes Republican). Domestic violence is pretty common too. Whenever a terrorist doesn't line up with the right's idea of terrorism then suddenly it's the work of a madman who isn't influenced by the propaganda of those who agreed with the terrorist right up until they got violent. It reeks of bullshit and I think anyone with half a sense can smell it a mile away. Your argument, that what republican candidates said is responsible for the act of this "terrorist" is like saying the quran or islam is responsible of ISIS, 9/11 and the recent event in Paris. My argument is that it contributes. People can claim the rhetoric doesn't contribute if they want but I don't see how that argument could be taken seriously. For instance if the guy in the previously posted video while doing "anything in his power to prevent" a mosque being built gets violent there is no reason to pretend he wasn't emboldened (even if indirectly) by the type of rhetoric/propaganda we've seen out of the political right. No one is claiming if people stopped the propaganda the violence would stop but the phrase "you're not helping" comes to mind.
Maybe it does contribute, but by pointing it this way you are in fact criminalizing some specific political positions.
|
In the early 90's after many Eastern European refugees got here we had the biggest post-war racist riots in the country in Rostock-Lichtenhagen with several thousand civilians cheering for rioters setting immigrant housing units on fire. This followed after a pretty long time of political agitation against refugees by the political right (including mainstream conservatives).
You won't hear this kind of polemic today any more, or if you do it's going to get shot down. Especially in the cities where there is no or little civil society a little propaganda from the top can have absolutely disastrous effects. There's a reason why these riots always occur in cities where there is no real red line between mainstream politics and the fringe right. Some kind of "anything goes" mentality is a complete disaster in multi-ethnic nations.
|
On November 30 2015 07:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2015 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On November 30 2015 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2015 06:30 Introvert wrote:On November 30 2015 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Of course IS is different from Carly Fiorina. In fact, Carly Fiorina's hp speech back in 2001 is one of the best examples of incredibly thoughtful and sensitive language in the face of crisis and an outside threat. This is part of why watching Carly Fiorina today is so frustrating - she has in the past showcased that she's an amazingly intelligent woman who absolutely understands the power of words and the importance of clear-headed and inclusive rhetoric. And yes, I know that eco-terrorism exists. Just like anti-abortion terrorism has existed for at least 30 years now. Just like how in Europe, we've had radical leftist terrorism (RAF), left-wing nationalist terrorism (ETA), right-wing nationalistic terrorism (Breivik), religious&nationalistic terrorism (IRA). No political position has a monopoly on idiotic extremists, and few political positions are blessed with the absense of such forces. I'm arguing that for each and every one of these, extremist language is part of the equation which makes some people so desperate for political change that they resort to violence. And as for your last line, I disagree. The fact that the person in question literally said 'no more baby body parts' before opening fire to me seems like a clear invokation of rhetoric Fiorina has employed on multiple occasions. Not just in the republican debate, in this link she states 'Interestingly, no one has denied that babies are being butchered for their body parts at Planned Parenthood clinics and elsewhere. They’re trying to have a conversation about a technicality about a video tape. The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts.' And in every one one of those cases you have more than one crazy guy living with no running water in a shack somewhere committing these acts. I'll reiterate, nothing these candidates have said would lead to this, and if your best example is mentally deranged man with a history of violence then you need something else. The connection really is so absurdly tenuous. Edit: again with the venting at Fiorina. I think that's really what's at heart here. What's absurd is your position. First, living without water and electricity in a trailer in the woods doesn't make you a "crazy person" by itself, it more likely makes you an Appalachian (who probably votes Republican). Domestic violence is pretty common too. Whenever a terrorist doesn't line up with the right's idea of terrorism then suddenly it's the work of a madman who isn't influenced by the propaganda of those who agreed with the terrorist right up until they got violent. It reeks of bullshit and I think anyone with half a sense can smell it a mile away. Your argument, that what republican candidates said is responsible for the act of this "terrorist" is like saying the quran or islam is responsible of ISIS, 9/11 and the recent event in Paris. My argument is that it contributes. People can claim the rhetoric doesn't contribute if they want but I don't see how that argument could be taken seriously. For instance if the guy in the previously posted video while doing "anything in his power to prevent" a mosque being built gets violent there is no reason to pretend he wasn't emboldened (even if indirectly) by the type of rhetoric/propaganda we've seen out of the political right. No one is claiming if people stopped the propaganda the violence would stop but the phrase "you're not helping" comes to mind. Maybe it does contribute, but by pointing it this way you are in fact criminalizing some specific political positions.
He isn't talking about criminalizing the political opinions, but that politicians need to mildly aware that people in the middle east watch our news. An Iranian ambassador said that its extremely difficult to convince anyone in Iran that the US isn't going to attack when our politicians say "the military option is on the table" 3-5 times a week during the negotiations. Our politicians seem to be very behind on the concept that their words carry world wide.
|
Hillary Clinton is calling for a $275 billion boost in federal infrastructure spending over five years and the creation of an infrastructure bank, arguing that the measures will help create jobs while modernizing the nation’s ailing roads and bridges.
"Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive across the board," she said Sunday at a rally in Boston’s Faneuil Hall, addressing a crowd heavy on workers from construction unions. "To build a strong economy for our future, we must start by building strong infrastructure today."
Her plan, she added, is "a down payment on our future."
The Democratic presidential front-runner plans to spend the next month laying out what her campaign is calling her “jobs agenda," including ideas for upping federal support for research and manufacturing. Her jobs proposals will add up to the most expensive set of policy ideas she’ll offer up throughout her campaign, her campaign said. The infrastructure proposals will be funded with revenue raised through business tax reform, though an aide declined to elaborate on what those measures would be.
Clinton’s plan would put $250 billion toward direct federal spending on infrastructure, while the remaining $25 billion would be seed funds to launch what her campaign described as a “strategic infrastructure bank.” The bank would leverage the initial federal investment to support another $225 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees and other forms of credit. In all, Clinton’s proposal would end up putting $500 billion in public and private funds toward infrastructure projects.
Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have both talked up their plans for a national infrastructure bank while on the campaign trail this year, and it’s an idea that’s been part of Democrats’ campaign promises for a quarter-century. Bill Clinton called for one during his 1992 campaign and made some progress on the idea during his first term. Barack Obama offered his proposal for a $60 billion infrastructure bank during the 2008 race and has subsequently made a handful of attempts to revive it.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
